DOCSLIB.ORG

Read About the History of Public Housing in the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Read About the History of Public Housing in the U.S THE HISTORY OF PUBLIC HOUSING One of man’s basic concerns is a house – a place to find protection from the rain and elements. But a house can be much more than a building. It is the social context of his family life – the place where he loves and shares with those closest to him. Very Reverend Pedro Arrupe, S.J. The Public Housing program in the United States is now over 70 years old. It had its genesis in the efforts of social activists who, before the turn of the century, pushed for slum clearance and safe, decent housing. Housing problems originated from the flood of immigrants that swelled the populations of cities like New York. Looking for a new life, immigrants arrived with little more than hope to pave the way. They faced language and cultural barriers and quickly discovered they were unable to pay the market price for decent housing. They moved into the only shelter available - slums and ghettos. Deep, narrow lots were developed with an eye toward maximum profit. Rooms were dark and airless. The wooden interiors were dangerous firetraps but were cheap to build. Backyard toilets served entire tenements. As a result, tuberculosis and other diseases flourished. Yet, plenty of residents were always ready to move in, and no law to intervene existed. Rural housing conditions were not much better. Often, entire families slept in one-room, unpainted, sagging shacks, but at least the children could enjoy air and sunlight unknown to their urban counterparts. Slowly, social awareness of these conditions grew. Pioneers like Alice Griffin in San Francisco, Jane Addams in Chicago, and Mary K. Simkovitch in New York City established settlement houses and fought for passage of ordinances to set light and space standards. Their work supported the idea of decent shelter as a necessary social goal. The Federal Role The federal government’s first direct involvement in housing came only during wartime efforts. Under the provisions of the Shipping Act of 1916, the U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation was organized in 1917. In 1918, the corporation was authorized to buy land, grant loans, and build housing for shipyard workers and their families. However, the first three decades of the 20th century witnessed private real estate speculation and limited government intervention. The result was small demonstrations and experiments in providing low-cost housing but little impact on the growing problems of slums. Peacetime federal involvement in housing began when the stock market crash of 1929, initiated a decade of economic depression and massive unemployment. In 1933, under President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives, Congress authorized the National Industrial Recovery Act and an appropriation of $3 billion for a public works program. This program was intended to spur employment and increase the demand for materials. Public purchasing power was to “prime the pump” of the economy and offset the decrease in demand created by the decline in private purchasing power. The combination of labor-intensive projects and public spending was the program’s primary purpose; the nature of the public works projects was considered only secondarily. Until then, national policy and public opinion had not considered, much less supported, publicly owned housing developments. But housing leaders saw the public works program as an opportunity finally to obtain federal involvement in providing decent shelter for the poor. The public housing program as we know it was born. Building low-income housing was an activity that fit the objectives of the public works program. The National Public Housing Conference, now the National Housing Conference (NHC), and organized labor began supporting this idea. Building housing was labor-intensive and it helped the depressed construction industry. Furthermore, “providing decent shelter for the poor” was in the public interest. The federal government set aside $150 million for housing, and the Housing Division of the Public Works Administration (PWA) was charged with building low-income public housing quickly. At first, the PWA attempted to make loans and grants to limited-dividend housing corporations, without much success. A few demonstration projects were funded, but private money and quick response were insufficient to meet the goals. To move forward, direct federal construction began in 1934. By 1937, approximately 22,000 unit existed in 50 projects across the country. A National Housing Policy These early efforts in the development and management of public housing were truly a joint effort by federal and local officials. It was under “emergency” conditions and a feeling of national crisis that these first efforts at public housing were realized. But the first New Deal programs were not enough. The national economy remained stagnant in terms of production, employment, and purchasing power. Critical credit problems with farm and home foreclosures persisted. The country initiated a national housing policy within this context. Recovery of the depressed construction industry, particularly labor, became a priority in the United States Senate. Housing leaders like the eminent planner Edith Elmer Wood, Clarence Stein, Mary Simkovitch, and others had access to Eleanor Roosevelt as well as to Senator Robert Wagner, who sponsored much of the New Deal social legislation. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 was the result of their efforts. With the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, the federal government started building public housing in 1933. But the crisis of the times and the need to create employment were not enough to stem a controversy over establishing a national housing policy and permanent federal assistance to help the poor obtain shelter. As momentum gained in the Congress to create such legislation, so did sentiment strongly opposing such action. The National Public Housing Conference (NPHC), and other housing and labor leaders led the “pro” argument. The National Association of Real Estate Boards and the National Association of Chambers of Commerce led the “con” argument. Senator Wagner declared 1936 the year to push for enactment of a housing policy. In a speech to NPHC in December 1935, he said: The objective of public housing, in a nutshell, is not to invade the field of home building for the middle class or the well to do which has been the only profitable area for private enterprise in the past. Nor is it even to exclude private enterprise from major participation in a low-cost housing program. It is merely to supplement what private industry will do, by subsidies, which will make up the difference between what the poor can afford to pay and what is necessary to assure decent living quarters. By contrast, the opposition stressed the sanctity of private ownership of housing under the American system, regardless of the financial problems of poor families. Walter S. Schmidt of Cincinnati, then president of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, expressed his position this way: 2 Housing should remain a matter of private enterprise and private ownership. It is contrary to the genius of the American people and the ideals they have established that government be landlord to its citizens.... There is sound logic in the continuance of the practice under which those who have initiative and the will to save, acquire better living facilities and yield their former quarters at modest rents to the group below. This argument has persisted in various degrees of intensity for the past 60 years. On April 3, 1936, Senator Wagner introduced the first U.S. Housing Act legislation. Although he favored the bill, President Roosevelt did not attach a “must” to it and Congress adjourned without passage. Roosevelt signed the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 into law on September 1, 1937. This Act of 1937 changed the role of the federal government in public housing. It removed the federal government from direct production and ownership of public housing and vested this activity in agencies under local control. The Act established the U.S. Housing Authority and authorized it to make loans to public housing agencies for up to 90 percent of the development costs of a project. The Act also contained several provisions to assure that the housing it aided would be available to “families of low income.” The Act removed the federal government from direct construction and ownership of the developments. The localities were free to choose participation under the program. Also, the law required that the number of new housing units built must be matched by a “substantially equal number” of unsafe or unsanitary units taken out of the housing supply by “demolition, condemnation, and effective closing” or rehabilitated by “compulsory repair or improvement.” This approach was called the principle of “equivalent elimination.” Public housing was not meant to add to the housing stock but merely to improve its quality. This idea fit in with the concept that selective slum clearance was to be combined with public housing. Under the 1937 Act, Congress created the U.S. Housing Authority with an administrator appointed by the President. In addition, local housing authorities were required to be created by local governments, under state enabling legislation. These authorities were to be administered by paid staff under the direction of a board of commissioners appointed by the local government. The Erie Housing Authority was established in 1938. In 1940, Congress, under the Lanham Act (an act to expedite the provision of housing in connection with national defense and for other purposes), provided funds for a new administrative organization for housing low-income families whose wage earners were in defense or war production. In 1942, the President, using his war powers, combined the U.S. Housing Authority and the Lanham Act administration into the National Housing Agency and renamed the combination the Federal Public Housing Authority (FPHA).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Practice Exam #1
    FALL 2014 PRACTICE EXAM #1 (1) A SmartCode Transect: I. Typically contains seven zones from Rural to Urban II. Is a way of locating and understanding a variety of different types of human settlement within a comprehensive web of natural and human habitats III. Has a historical linkage to Geddes’ Valley Section IV. Has its origins in Howards’ Garden Cities concept (A) I, III (B) I, IV (C) II, III (D) I, II, III, IV The correct answer is (C) The concept of the transect was borrowed from ecology. Patrick Geddes, in his above “Valley Section” of the early 20th century was among the first to proclaim that human settlement should be analyzed in the context of its natural region. To systemize the analysis and coding of traditional patterns, a prototypical American rural-to-urban SmartCode transect has been divided into six Transect Zones, or T-zones (below), for application on zoning maps. SEE: http://www.transect.org/transect.html & http://www.transect.org/natural_img.html (2) Among the leading American "advocate planners" of the late 1960's was? (A) Paul Davidoff. (B) Jane Jacobs. (C) Henry George. (D) T. J. Kent, Jr. The correct answer is “A” Paul Davidoff (1930-1984) founded the Suburban Action Institute in 1969. The institute challenged exclusionary zoning in the courts, winning a notable success in the Mt. Laurel case. This led to the requirement by the state supreme court of New Jersey that communities must supply their "regional fair share" of low-income housing. Davidoff developed the concept of "advocacy planner" where a planner serves a given client group's interests and should do so openly; a planner could develop plans for a particular project and speak for interests of the group or individuals affected by these plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Community, Identity, and Spatial Politics in San Francisco Public Housing, 1938--2000
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2005 "More than shelter": Community, identity, and spatial politics in San Francisco public housing, 1938--2000 Amy L. Howard College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, Public Policy Commons, United States History Commons, Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Howard, Amy L., ""More than shelter": Community, identity, and spatial politics in San Francisco public housing, 1938--2000" (2005). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539623466. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-7ze6-hz66 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with with permission permission of the of copyright the copyright owner. Furtherowner. reproduction Further reproduction prohibited without prohibited permission. without permission. “MORE THAN SHELTER”: Community, Identity, and Spatial Politics in San Francisco Public Housing, 1938-2000 A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the American Studies Program The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Amy Lynne Howard 2005 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Affordable Housing
    Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University History Lessons for Today’s Housing Policy The Political Processes of Making Low-Income Housing Policy Alexander von Hoffman August 2012 Wl2-5 The research for this paper was conducted with the support of the Rockefeller Foundation. © by Alexander von Hoffman. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies. This is a preprint of an article whose final and definitive form has been published in Housing Policy Debate © 2012 copyright Taylor & Francis: Table of Contents I. Introduction………………………….………………………………...............1 II. Housing Policy in the Great Economic Crisis………………………...............2 III. The Postwar Housing Crisis…………………………………………………..10 IV. Housing Remedies for the Urban Crisis………………………………………17 V. Policy Crisis and the Long Winding Road to a New Approach………………27 VI. Some Lessons from History for Promoting a New Rental Housing Policy.….41 I. INTRODUCTION History offers valuable lessons to policy makers. Among other lessons, it teaches us the reasons that the government adopted the programs that constitute the current housing policy landscape. The political strategies that succeeded in the past illuminate the possibilities for winning approval for and enacting new policies today. In recent American history, four crises related to housing led the United States government to initiate large-scale housing programs for low-and moderate-income Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Continuing Crisis in Affordable Housing: Systemic Issues Requiring Systemic Solutions, 31 Fordham Urb
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 31 | Number 2 Article 4 2004 The onC tinuing Crisis in Affordable Housing: Systemic Issues Requiring Systemic Solutions Paulette J. Williams University of Tennessee College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Housing Law Commons Recommended Citation Paulette J. Williams, The Continuing Crisis in Affordable Housing: Systemic Issues Requiring Systemic Solutions, 31 Fordham Urb. L.J. 413 (2004). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol31/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CONTINUING CRISIS IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING: SYSTEMIC ISSUES REQUIRING SYSTEMIC SOLUTIONS Paulette J. Williams* I. INTRODUCTION In 1960, my father bought the first home he ever owned. He was forty years old, with one child away at college and two still in high school. As a career military man, my father picked up his family every two or three years and moved lock, stock, and barrel to a totally new location. Until he first bought a house, our family had lived in rented houses, sometimes on military bases. He bought his first house in Manchester, New Hampshire, because there was no housing available on base, and very little rental housing was availa- ble in town. Buying the house was not part of a long-term strategy; we simply needed a place to live, and this house was what he found.' * Assoc.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlanta Office of Public Housing Commemorates the 75Th Anniversary of the US Housing Act 1937-2012 October 2012
    Special thanks to: Sherrill C. Dunbar, Program Analyst Deidre Reeves, Public Housing Revitalization Specialist Cover photo: Olmsted Homes, the first public housing project built in Georgia after passage of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. Atlanta Office of Public Housing Commemorates the 75th Anniversary of the U.S. Housing Act 1937-2012 October 2012 U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Region IV Five Points Plaza 40 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2806 Greetings All: On behalf of the staff at the Atlanta Office of Public Housing, it is my pleasure to present our commemorative booklet marking the 75th anniversary of the 1937 U. S. Housing Act. The commemoration of the 1937 U. S. Housing Act has special meaning in the state of Georgia, as it was in Georgia that the first public housing development in the United States, Techwood Homes in Atlanta, was constructed. The evolution of Techwood homes into today’s Centennial Place, a mixed-income community, is a testament of just how far public housing has come since 1937. However, there are many more shining examples throughout Georgia, as you will see in the 25 public housing agencies profiled in this publication. Today, 75 years after the passage of the 1937 Housing Act, there are more than 3300 housing authorities nationwide, and 185 in the state of Georgia alone. Housing authorities are still charged with providing decent, safe and affordable housing to low-income citizens, as evidenced by the more than 200,000 Georgia residents that participate in HUD’s Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Federal Government in Housing I Introduction
    f ;* I i i : 7zr.i l '! ^ I t IfcW;;- s£ •: ' I _ APR 13 1958 V* TfcraaiilE and Home Finance Ag©no> •> . ! of th® Ad®ini§tratop s •! LUBAHI ; 1 I THE ROLE OF THE ■ '<* ! > FEDERAL GOVERNMENT :‘i I i' IN HOUSING ' ! ; / > ■n 1 By Paul F. Wendt r i j i i- I f PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE i AMERICAN ENTERPRISE ASSOCIATION, Inc. WASHINGTON, D. C. •-"i r Stowing and Home finance ^onot •ffio* of the Adainietrater UMimi The Role of the Federal government in Housing THE ROLE OF THE By Paul F. Wendt FEDERAL GOVERNMENT In this study Dr. Paul F. Wendt, Professor of Finance, IN HOUSING University of California at Berkeley, traces the evolution of Federal housing policies and programs and evaluates specific programs in terms of their contribution to the By Paul F. Wendt solution of the Nation's housing problems. Dr. Wendt is a consultant on housing, valuation and t C " -investments and for the last seven years has been engaged in^developing a curriculum in real estate at the University of California and carrying on real estate research. He is a member of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and former Vice President of the American Finance Association. He is the author of the book Real Estate Appraisal published in January of this year. NO. 460 IN TOE SERIES “NATIONAL ECONOMIC PROBLEMS” PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE For Additional Copies American Enterprise Association, Inc. Address I WASHINGTON, D. C. American Enterprise Association, Inc. 1012 14th Street, N.W., Washington 5, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic American Building Survey
    Ramsey Homes City of Alexandria, Virginia WSSI #22386.02 Historic American Building Survey December 2015 Prepared for: Ramsey Homes, LP 401 Wythe St. Alexandria, VA 22314 Prepared by: Anna Maas, MUEP, David Carroll, M.A., RPA, and Boyd Sipe, M.A., RPA 5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Suite 100 Gainesville, Virginia 20155 Tel: 703-679-5600 Email: [email protected] www.wetlandstudies.com RAMSEY HOMES HABS VA-1511 (Buildings I-IV) HABS VA-1511 (Lanham Act Alexandria Defense Housing Project VA-44133) East side of the 600 block of North Patrick Street Alexandria Independent City Virginia PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA REDUCED COPIES OF MEASURED DRAWINGS HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240-0001 HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDING SURVEY INDEX TO PHOTOGRAPHS RAMSEY HOMES HABS No. VA-1511 600 Block of North Patrick Street City of Alexandria Virginia Photographer: Bill Lebovich August 2015 VA-1511-1 ALLEY EAST OF BUILDINGS, SHOWING SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS OF BUILDINGS I THROUGH IV, LOOKING NORTH. VA-1511-2 LAWN BETWEEN BUILDINGS I AND II, LOOKING EAST. VA-1511-3 EAST LAWN OF BUILDINGS III AND IV, LOOKING SOUTHEAST. VA-1511-4 SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS OF BUILDING I, LOOKING NORTHWEST. VA-1511-5 EAST AND NORTH ELEVATIONS OF BUILDING I, LOOKING SOUTHWEST. VA-1511-6 STREETSCAPE WITH NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS OF BUILDING I IN FOREGROUND, LOOKING SOUTH. VA-1511-7 SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS OF BUILDING I, LOOKING NORTHEAST. VA-1511-8 SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS OF BUILDING II, LOOKING NORTHWEST.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 4.6A HRER (City), 1095 Connecticut Street (Potrero Terrace/Annex), July 15, 2011
    Appendix 4.6A HRER (City), 1095 Connecticut Street (Potrero Terrace/Annex), July 15, 2011 ,4OUN Ir SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Historic Resource Evaluation Response Environmental Planner: Rachel Schuett (415) 575-9030 [email protected] Preservation Planner: Matt Weintraub (415) 575-6812 [email protected] Project Address: 1095 Connecticut Street (Potrero Terrace/Annex) Block/Lot: 4167/004, 004A, 4220A, 4222A, 4285B, 4223/001 Case No.: 2010.0515E Date of Review: July 15, 2011 (Part I) PART I: HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION BUILDING(S) AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Potrero Terrace/Potrero Annex ("Potrero housing complex") is a mid-20 1h century public housing complex that includes a total of 61 separate buildings and 606 units on a sloping, hillside site that covers 24.84 total acres. The Potrero housing complex is identified by several street addresses, including 1095 Connecticut Street, which is the Administration Building. The Potrero housing complex was constructed in two phases: Potrero Terrace was built in 1941; and Potrero Annex was built in 1953-1954. The Potrero housing complex includes long rectangular buildings arranged in curvilinear rows on terraced building pads, and a similar curvilinear street pattern, which conform to the sloping topography of the site. Most buildings include two full levels at uphill elevations and three full levels at downhill elevations. Buildings are simple in design and display minimal architectural articulation or detail. Other site features include mature trees, concrete retaining walls, walkways and steps, and yards around and between buildings. The Potrero housing complex is located on the south and southeast slopes of Potrero Hill, in southeast San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing and Urban Development
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT MAJOR LEGISLATION ON HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ENACTED SINCE 1932 1932 Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932, Public Law 72-304 (7/22/32) Establishes a system of Federal home loan banks with authority to make advances secured by first mortgages to member home-financing institutions. 1933 Home Owners Loan Act of 1933, Public Law 73-43 (6/13/33) Creates the Home Owners Loan Corporation, which refinances mortgages of homeowners faced with losing their homes during the Depression; authorizes the chartering of Federal savings and loan associations; and broadens the credit activities of the Federal home loan banks. 1934 National Housing Act, Public Law 73-479 (6/27/34) Creates the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) with the authority to insure long-term mortgage loans made by private lending institutions on homes and rental housing, and to insure lenders against loss on smaller loans financing home alterations, repair, and other improvements. Further popularizes the single, low downpayment, long-term, low interest rate amortized mortgage. Establishes the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation under the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Also, authorizes the chartering of national mortgage associations to provide a secondary mortgage market. The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA or Fannie Mae) was originally chartered under this authority. 1937 United States Housing Act of 1937, Public Law 75-412 (9/1/37) Authorizes Federal loans and annual contributions to local public housing agencies for low-rent public housing. Major Legislation on Housing and Urban Development Enacted Since 1932 1940 Amendments to the 1937 Act, Public Law 76-671 (6/28/40) Amends the United States Housing Act of 1937 to authorize the use of assisted projects for housing defense and war workers.
    [Show full text]
  • An Intimate History 1
    Chapter 1 Affordable Housing— An Intimate History 1 Charles L. Edson In 1918, Congress made the United States Ship-Building Corporation the first federal entity in the affordable housing field by authorizing $100 million to build 25 war-worker projects providing more than 5,000 homes. Previously, in 1892, Congress had authorized $20,000 for a federal investigation of slum con- ditions. And in 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt appointed the President’s Housing Commission to look into the need for decent housing for low-income Americans and recommended federal aid. Nothing came of either effort.1 This bit of history reveals a pattern of housing programs and funding that continues to this day: Affordable housing is not deemed to be an end in itself, but a way to serve another purpose—for example, to house defense workers during the world wars, to create jobs during the Depression, to provide an antidote to civil unrest in the 1960s, or to stimulate the economy in today’s Great Recession. This will not be a chronological history. Rather, it primarily addresses key areas: public housing, nonprofit and private-sector programs, tax incentives for housing, housing preservation, and low-income home ownership. Fair housing, a subject of crucial importance, presents a long, separate, and important story that cannot readily be summarized here.2 I participated in the legislative struggles that produced the programs to be discussed, except for the 1937 enactment of public housing when I was only two years old. Although this history will be accurate and factual, the interpretations and perspectives included are those of the author.
    [Show full text]
  • The People V. HUD ”: a HUD 50Th Anniversary Timeline of Significant Civil Rights Lawsuits and HUD Fair Housing Advances
    Fifty Years Of “The People v. HUD ”: A HUD 50th Anniversary Timeline of Significant Civil Rights Lawsuits And HUD Fair Housing Advances The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was a child of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty and part of his Great Society plan to eliminate poverty and racial injustice in America. Yet, as HUD’s first Secretary, Robert Weaver, recognized, the agency inherited the racialized politics and policies of its predecessor agencies. In 1968, President Johnson’s new housing agency moved into its “brutalist” architectural-styled headquarters in Washington D.C., only a few months after the Fair Housing Act became law. Since that time, the fate of both the agency and the Fair Housing Act has been intertwined. HUD and its grantees have been sued, and HUD has learned valuable lessons from these cases. HUD has also brought its own fair housing claims against state and local governments and housing providers, often working alongside the same advocates who have brought discrimination and segregation claims against HUD. HUD has benefited enormously from strong civil rights advocacy, and many of HUD’s most important regulatory guidelines have emerged from this advocacy. We offer this selected timeline as a tribute to this ongoing history and, we hope, an inspiration to a new generation of civil rights and tenant activists. Originally developed by PRRAC for HUD's 50th Anniversary in 2015; updated in February 2018 Shelley v. Kraemer (and Hurd v. Hodge): The U.S. Supreme Court holds that courts cannot enforce racially restrictive covenants on real estate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949
    Housing Policy Debate · Volume 11, Issue 2 299 © Fannie Mae Foundation 2000. All Rights Reserved. 299 A Study in Contradictions: The Origins and Legacy of the Housing Act of 1949 Alexander von Hoffman Harvard University Abstract The origins and legacy of the Housing Act of 1949 reflect the conflicting impulses of the political leaders who created it and the complexity of the forces it attempted to control. Its history is studded with contradictions. Through its public housing pro- gram, the act provided housing for low-income families; through its urban redevelop- ment program, it cleared slums and destroyed affordable housing units. Twenty-five years after its passage, many observers concluded that public housing and urban renewal programs were fostering the slums and blight they were meant to eradicate. Even as policy makers abandoned the methods the act prescribed and adopted one housing and redevelopment program after another, they adhered res- olutely to its goals. Hence, although its programs have been deemed failures, the vision of the Housing Act of 1949—to revitalize American cities and provide a decent home for every American family—remains undimmed. Keywords: Federal; Housing; Policy Introduction Has there ever been a piece of federal legislation with such a history of contradictions as the Housing Act of 1949? The law was the product of seven years of bitter legislative stalemate and a shotgun wedding between enemy lobbying groups. It set lofty goals—to eliminate slums and blighted areas and provide a decent home for every American family—but provided only the limited mech- anisms of public housing and urban renewal to meet them.
    [Show full text]